McFarland v. Penzone

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedApril 18, 2024
Docket2:24-cv-00244
StatusUnknown

This text of McFarland v. Penzone (McFarland v. Penzone) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
McFarland v. Penzone, (D. Ariz. 2024).

Opinion

1 KM 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Kelly Marie McFarland, No. CV-24-00244-PHX-JAT (ASB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Paul Penzone, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Self-represented Plaintiff Kelly Marie McFarland, who is confined in a Maricopa 16 County Jail, filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1) and an 17 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will grant the Application 18 to Proceed and will dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend. 19 I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee 20 The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 28 21 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Plaintiff must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. 22 § 1915(b)(1). The Court will not assess an initial partial filing fee. Id. The statutory filing 23 fee will be collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income credited 24 to Plaintiff’s trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate Order requiring the appropriate government 26 agency to collect and forward the fees according to the statutory formula. 27 . . . . 28 . . . . 1 II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints 2 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief 3 against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 4 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff 5 has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which 6 relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 7 such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)–(2). 8 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 9 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 10 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 11 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 12 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 13 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 14 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 15 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 16 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 17 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 18 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 19 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 20 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 21 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 22 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 23 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 24 must “continue to construe [self-represented litigant’s] filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 25 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a self-represented prisoner] 26 ‘must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. 27 (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 28 . . . . 1 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 2 facts, a self-represented litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before 3 dismissal of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en 4 banc). Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but because it 5 may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 6 III. Complaint 7 In her three-count Complaint, Plaintiff seeks monetary damages from Defendants 8 former Maricopa County Sheriff Paul Penzone, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, CHS 9 Medical Services, and the Maricopa County Estrella Jail. 10 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges violations of her Eighth Amendment rights. She 11 claims she is housed in a facility with visible black mold in the showers, sinks, drinking 12 water faucets, toilets, and ventilations systems and is given moldy fruit and bread and rotten 13 peanut butter. She alleges she breathes in toxic mold spores every day and “it is a known 14 fact that that the toxic mold . . . spores . . . are very poisonous . . . and slowly over time it 15 is going to have serious long[-]term damage to [her] lungs.” As her injury, she states “short 16 term [and] long term physical and mental problems like breathing problems[,] lung 17 problems[,] and even possible heart problems.” 18 In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1997, claiming “medical 19 care is not up to par[] to handle the black mold or the poisoning effects black mold has on 20 a person’s short/long term health.” She alleges “they do not address a person who is sick 21 from black mold because they do not test us for black mold exposure” and asserts that “the 22 effects of being poisoned by black mold are going to cause [her] long[-]term injury from 23 being housed for a long period of time in Estrella County Jail Detention Center.” 24 In Count Three, Plaintiff alleges a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1997g, claiming 25 Defendant Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and staff “have misappropriated the funds 26 they receive to fix this place as according to 1997g to fix an unconstitutional or illegal 27 condition that exist[s] such as testing this place for black mold and ensuring our basic needs 28 1 are met.” As her injury, she states “health problems[,] eating[,] breathing[,] sleeping 2 because [she has] to live in unconstitutional conditions.” 3 IV. Failure to State a Claim 4 Although self-represented pleadings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 5 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972), conclusory and vague allegations will not support a cause of 6 action. Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). Further, a liberal 7 interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements of the claim 8 that were not initially pled. Id. 9 A. Defendant Penzone 10 To state a valid claim under § 1983, plaintiffs must allege that they suffered a 11 specific injury as a result of specific conduct of a defendant and show an affirmative link 12 between the injury and the conduct of that defendant.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Bell v. Wolfish
441 U.S. 520 (Supreme Court, 1979)
Daniels v. Williams
474 U.S. 327 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Erickson v. Pardus
551 U.S. 89 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Hebbe v. Pliler
627 F.3d 338 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Ivey v. Board of Regents of University of Alaska
673 F.2d 266 (Second Circuit, 1982)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Dennis Hamilton v. Roger v. Endell
981 F.2d 1062 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Braillard v. Maricopa County
232 P.3d 1263 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2010)
Manuel Ortega Melendres v. Joseph Arpaio
784 F.3d 1254 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
Hearns v. Terhune
413 F.3d 1036 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
Sadoski v. Mosley
435 F.3d 1076 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Jonathon Castro v. County of Los Angeles
833 F.3d 1060 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
McFarland v. Penzone, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcfarland-v-penzone-azd-2024.